# EUR-Lex - 52013PC0082 - EN

*|*

# 52013PC0082

**Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the People's Republic of China /* COM/2013/082 final - 2013/0051 (NLE) */**

			*

			*

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns the application of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

General context This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation.

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal Provisional anti-dumping measures were imposed on the same product group by Commission Regulation (EU) No 845/2012 (OJ L 252, 19.9.2012, p.33).

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union Not applicable.

2.           RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS
WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

Consultation of interested parties

Interested parties concerned by the proceeding have had the possibility to defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic Regulation.

Collection and use of expertise

There was no need for external expertise.

Impact assessment This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. The basic Regulation does not provide for a general impact assessment but contains an exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed.

3.           LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE
PROPOSAL

Summary of the proposed action On 18 September 2012, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the People's Republic of China. The investigation found dumping of the product concerned, which caused injury to the Union industry. The investigation also found that it was not against the Union interest to impose anti-dumping measures. Therefore, it is proposed that the Council adopts the attached proposal for a Regulation in order to impose definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the People's Republic of China.

Legal basis Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (‘the basic Regulation’)

Subsidiarity principle The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Union. The subsidiarity principle therefore does not apply.

Proportionality principle The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons:

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no scope for national decision.

Indication of how financial and administrative burden falling upon the Union, national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable.

Choice of instruments

Proposed instrument: Regulation.

Other means would not be adequate because the basic Regulation does not provide for alternative options.

4.           BUDGETARY IMPLICATION

The proposal has no implication for the EU
budget.

2013/0051 (NLE)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain
organic coated steel products originating in the People's Republic of China

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European
Community[1]
('the basic Regulation'), and in particular
Article 9 and 14(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by
the European Commission ('the Commission') after consulting the Advisory
Committee,

Whereas:

1.           PROVISIONAL
MEASURES

(1)       The Commission, by
Regulation (EU) No 845/2012[2]
(‘the provisional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty ('the
provisional measures') on imports of certain organic coated steel products
('OCS') originating in the People's Republic of China
('PRC').

(2)       The proceeding was
initiated following a complaint lodged on 7 November 2011 by Eurofer ('the complainant') on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 70%, of
the total Union production of OCS. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the
said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered
sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.

2.           SUBSEQUENT
PROCEDURE

(3)       Subsequent
to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of
which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures ('the
provisional disclosure'), several interested parties made written submissions
making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so
requested were granted the opportunity to be heard.

(4)       The Commission continued
to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive
findings. Further verification visits were carried out at the premises of the
following company:

–
Macrometal, Hamburg

(5)       Subsequently all parties
were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which
it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty
on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the PRC and
the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of provisional duty
('the final disclosure'). All parties were granted a period within which they
could make comments on the final disclosure.

(6)       The comments submitted by
the interested parties were considered and taken into account where
appropriate.

2.1.        Investigation
period

(7)       As set out in recital (12)
of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered
the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 (the ‘investigation period’
or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury
covered the period from January 2008 to the end of the IP (‘the period considered’).

3.           PRODUCT
CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

3.1.        Product
exclusion requests

(8)       Recitals (19) and (20) of
the provisional Regulation stated that the Commission had received several
requests for product exclusion and that no conclusions had been reached at the
time of the provisional Regulation being published.

(9)       After disclosure of the
provisional findings, more requests were received and have been analysed as
follows:

3.1.1.     OCS with metallic coating of
chromium or tin

(10)     A user of OCS submitted a
request to exclude OCS with a substrate with a metallic coating of chromium or
tin from the product scope. The investigation established that the metallic
coating of chromium or tin renders this product type physically and chemically
different to the OCS under investigation. OCS with a substrate with a metallic
coating of chromium or tin is almost exclusively used in the food packaging and
cable industries. The Union industry also explained that it had not intended
this product to form part of the product scope. For these reasons OCS with a
substrate with a metallic coating of chromium or tin has been excluded from the
product scope of the investigation.

(11)     The
China Iron and Steel Association ('CISA'), two importers and one user proposed
the exclusion of four other product types. These requests were analysed and
rejected as below.

3.1.2.     Hot-rolled plates with
protective primer, whether organic or inorganic

(12)     This
request was rejected because these products do not fall under the CN codes
under investigation. The painting or coating is only for rust protection and
therefore fall under CN heading 7208 and not CN heading 7210. Hot-rolled plates
with a protective primer, whether organic or inorganic, are not included in the
product scope and as a result cannot be removed from it.

3.1.3.     OCS with substrate thickness
between 0.6 and 2.0 mm

(13)     CISA
and two importers requested the exclusion of OCS with substrate thickness
between 0.6 and 2.0 mm, representing 5 – 10% of imports from China, stating that there was only direct competition between Chinese exports and Union industry
production for OCS with substrate thickness of between 0.25 and 0.6 mm.

(14)     This
request was rejected given that both Chinese exporters and the Union industry
manufacture and sell OCS with a substrate thickness of between 0.6 and 2.0 mm
and that therefore these products are clearly in competition with each other.
No evidence was provided to show that OCS with a substrate thickness of over
0.6 mm does not compete with OCS with a substrate thickness of less than 0.6 mm
and that therefore this would constitute a different product type. OCS with
substrate thickness of less than and above 0.6 mm have the same basic physical
and technical characteristics and same end uses and therefore are the same
product.

3.1.4.     OCS with aluminium-zinc
alloy coated substrate

(15)     The
two importers alleged that only four Union producers have the licence to
produce this product type and that only one company was in fact producing it.
They also alleged that this product differs from zinc coated OCS in terms of
product characteristics.

(16)     This
request was rejected as the two product types are interchangeable with
overlapping uses and at least two cooperating Union producers manufactured this
product type during the investigation period. It should be noted that only one
cooperating Chinese exporting producer exported this product type to the Union during the investigation period.

3.1.5.     OCS with zinc alloy coated
substrate

(17)     This
request was rejected because, contrary to the assertion by one user, this
product is produced and sold in significant quantities by several Union
producers and has the same essential physical and technical characteristics and
end uses as other types of OCS.

3.2.        Product
inclusion request

(18)     Following
disclosure of the provisional findings, one association requested that OCS with
a metallic coating of chromium or tin, classified under TARIC codes 7210 12 20
10 and 7210 50 00 10 be included in the product scope. This request was
rejected as these codes were not included in the original complaint and the
products covered by such codes have different physical and technical
characteristics from the products covered by the complaint.

3.3.        Product
concerned

(19)     Given the acceptance of the exclusion of OCS with metallic
coating of chromium or tin, the provisional findings with regard to the product
concerned, outlined in recitals (13) and (14) of the provisional Regulation,
are amended by this exclusion.

(20)     The product concerned is
therefore now certain organic coated steel products ('OCS'), i.e. flat-rolled
products of non-alloy and alloy steel (not including stainless steel) which are
painted, varnished or coated with plastics on at least one side, excluding
so-called 'sandwich panels' of a kind used for building applications and
consisting of two outer metal sheets with a stabilising core of insulation
material sandwiched between them, excluding those products with a final coating
of zinc-dust (a zinc-rich paint, containing by weight 70 % or more of zinc), and
excluding those products with a substrate with a metallic coating of chromium
or tin, currently falling within CN codes ex 7210 70 80, ex 7212 40 80, ex 7225
99 00, ex 7226 99 70, and originating in the People's Republic of China ('the product
concerned').

3.4.        Like
product

(21)     Since
no comments were received with regard to the conclusions outlined in recitals
(15) to (18) of the provisional Regulation, the provisional findings with
regard to the like product are hereby confirmed.

4.           DUMPING

(22)     Several Chinese exporting
producers submitted comments on dumping following the imposition of provisional
measures and the disclosure of the Commission's provisional findings to the
Chinese exporting producers.

4.1.        Market
economy treatment ('MET')

(23)     In the absence of any
comments concerning MET, recitals (21) to (38) of the provisional Regulation
are hereby confirmed. None of the two groups of cooperating exporters in the
PRC that had requested MET could show that they fulfilled the criteria for
being granted MET.

4.2.        Individual
treatment ('IT')

(24)     Two
exporting producers in the PRC met the criteria for being granted IT (recital
(40) of the provisional Regulation). Another party reiterated its claims to be
granted IT and individual examination. Indeed, this party withdrew its MET
claim but maintained its request to be granted IT, as well as individual
examination. This claim was considered as a claim for individual examination
and therefore included in the requests mentioned in recital (41) of the
provisional Regulation. In accordance with Article 9(5) and 9(6) of the basic
Regulation, individual duties shall be applied to imports from any exporter or
producer which will be granted individual examination, as provided for in
Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. As explained in more detail in recitals
(26) to (31) below, the claim for an individual duty for this party was
rejected.

(25)     In the absence of any other
comments on IT, recitals (39) to (40) of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

4.3.        Individual
examination ('IE')

(26)     Claims for individual
examination were submitted by eight exporting producers pursuant to Article
17(3) of the basic Regulation. As explained in recitals (41) and (42) of the
provisional Regulation, hereby confirmed, one exporting producer, Union Steel
China, which requested MET, was inspected in the framework of the examination
of its MET claim.

(27)     With regard to all other
claims for individual examination, it was concluded that individual examinations
would be unduly burdensome and would prevent the completion of the
investigation in good time. Accordingly, these claims were not accepted.

(28)     One party argued that its
request cannot be considered as administratively burdensome as after the
provisional stage the Commission services still have six months before the
definitive determination. Also, in recent proceedings the Commission services
have granted individual examination after the provisional stage.

(29)     Another party, already
referred to in recital (24) above, argued that it should be granted individual
examination as it has submitted the necessary information within the time
limits set and as individual examination was already granted to another
exporting producer, Union Steel China.

(30)     Decisions whether or not to
accept individual examinations are taken on a case by case basis, taking into
account the number of claims submitted and the time available to assess these
claims. In this case, in view of the number of claims submitted, the limited
time available after the examination of the sampled exporting producers and the
MET claim of the exporting producer which was not included in the sample and
the procedural deadlines which need to be respected, it was decided that these
claims cannot be accepted, as set out in recital (27) above.

(31)     As explained in recital
(41) of the provisional Regulation, with regard to Union Steel China the
circumstances were different as this company was already inspected in the
framework of the examination of its MET claim.

4.4.        Normal
value

4.4.1.     Analogue country

(32)     No further comments were
received concerning the selection of Canada as the analogue country. Therefore
recitals (43) to (49) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

4.4.2.     Determination of normal
value

(33)     Normal value was calculated
on the basis of the data provided by the sole cooperating producer in the
analogue country (i.e. Canada). Thus, normal value was established on the basis
of prices of domestic sales and constructed normal value of one Canadian producer
of the like product as explained in recitals (50) to (55) of the provisional Regulation.

(34)     Following the provisional
disclosure, two Chinese exporting producers argued that the Commission did not
provide necessary information in relation to the normal value in the analogue
country, in particular regarding the different product types, comparability of
the products, representativeness and adjustments.

(35)     These claims were partially accepted. The Commission
provided to the Chinese exporting producers all relevant information concerning
the data used in order to calculate normal value that could be released without
infringing the provisions of Article 19 of the basic Regulation, i.e. assuring
at the same time that any confidential data provided by the sole Canadian
producer is treated as such and is not disclosed to other parties. The
information provided to the exporting producers allowed to understand the
methodology used in line with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic
Regulation. However, it was found that more
detailed data could be provided per product type by using ranges in order to
respect the confidentiality of the data. Such data were provided in the final
disclosure. In addition, more detailed information was provided as to why some
products types were found not to be representative and the level of the
adjustments made to the normal value.

(36)     Following the final
disclosure, one party acknowledged that more detailed data was indeed provided,
but argued that some data were still missing, in particular with regard to the
level of the cost of manufacturing used to construct the normal value for those
product types that were not sold domestically.

(37)     For those product types not
sold domestically, the cost of manufacturing of the closest resembling product
types were used as a basis and adjusted where appropriate. Although they were
not identical to those exported by the Chinese exporting producers, they
nevertheless very closely resembled the types sold by the Chinese exporting
producers, as in general only the thickness of the organic coating varied.
Accordingly the differences in cost of manufacturing were found to be minor.

(38)     As acknowledged by this
party in its submission, in the final disclosure the Commission provided more
detailed data presented in ranges, including data relating to the cost of
manufacturing, SG&A and profit in the analogue country used to construct
normal value, data relating to the overall level of adjustments made to the
normal value, data relating to the final normal value per group of product
types, data regarding the representativeness and the nature and effects of the
adjustments made to the normal value.

(39)     As follows from the above,
the final disclosure, made in accordance with the requirements of Article 20 of
the basic Regulation, allowed interested parties to understand in detail the
methodology used in line with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic
Regulation and all parties were given the opportunity to comment on the final
disclosure. Therefore, it is concluded that the disclosure was complete and
that the rights of defence of interested parties were fully respected.

(40)     One party claimed that the
source of the selling, general and administrative costs and profit in cases
where the normal value was constructed was left unexplained. However, in
recital (55) of the provisional Regulation it is explained that the selling,
general and administrative costs of the Canadian producer and the profit margin
of the Canadian producer for the product types that were found to be profitable
were used in cases where the normal value had to be constructed. In accordance
with Article 2(3) and 2(6) of the basic Regulation, selling, general and
adminstrative costs and profit are based on verified costs and verified
domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade of the analogue country
producer.

(41)     In view of the above,
recitals (50) to (55) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

4.5.        Export
price

(42)     In the
absence of any comments, recital (56) of the provisional Regulation is hereby
confirmed.

4.6.        Comparison

(43)     Two parties claimed that
the Commission did not provide sufficient information with regard to the
comparability of the product types and their representativeness at product type
level.

(44)     As explained in recital (35)
above, the Commission provided to the Chinese exporting producers all the
relevant data that could be provided, account taken of the provisions on
confidentiality in the basic Regulation. More detailed information per product
type was indeed provided following this claim made after the provisional
disclosure, including the reasons why some product types were found not to be
representative and, accordingly, the normal value had to be constructed.

(45)     Following
the verification visit to the Canadian analogue country producer, the normal values for some product types were adjusted downwards for
differences in physical characteristics in accordance with Article 2(10)(a) of
the basic Regulation, mainly as it was found that the organic coating used by
the Canadian producer with regard to some of the product types was of a
different quality than the one used by the Chinese exporting producers. These
adjustments have resulted in a lower normal value for the product types
concerned.

(46)     One party requested the amounts
of each of the adjustments made to the normal value. In order to respect the
confidentiality of the data provided by the Canadian producer, these data could
not be provided. However, the overall percentage of the adjustments was given
in the final disclosure, showing that the impact of the adjustments was minor.

(47)     As set out in recital (37)
above, in case of any difference found the product types that were sold
domestically resembled nevertheless very closely the types sold by the Chinese
exporting producers. These product types were found to be similar in terms of
steel quality, substrate width and thickness of the substrate used and the type
and mass of the metallic coating used.

(48)     Where appropriate the
adjustment for differences in physical characteristics was made, as set out in
recital (45) above, due to a difference in the quality of the organic coating
used with regard to some of the product types. In order to assess the market value
of the difference, the average cost difference with the closest resembling
product type was taken into account as well as international market prices.

(49)     The same party enquired
whether transport costs and insurance costs were included in the SG&A. It
should be stated that as the comparison was done on an ex-works basis, these
costs were not included.

(50)     One party argued that their
claim for an adjustment in relation to the value of three invoices should have
been taken into account, as well as one particular sales transaction which had
been disregarded. This claim related to compensation paid to a customer linked
to sales made prior to the investigation period, but which had been treated as
a discount to the value of these three invoices issued in the investigation
period, resulting in the value of these invoices being artificially lowered. The
company's claim was accepted. The requested adjustment was made and the sales
transaction, which was erronously omitted, was included in the calculation of the
export price.

(51)     In the absence of any other
comments, recital (57) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

4.7.        Dumping
margin

(52)     In the absence of any
comments in this respect, the methodology as set out in recitals (58) and (59) of
the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

(53)     Following provisional
disclosure, the Commission was informed that some trading companies, that did
not produce the product concerned, had been named in the operative part of the
Regulation. These trading companies have now been removed from the operative
part and only exporting producers are now named.

(54)     Taken into account the
adjustment of the normal value and the very minor adjustment to the export
price, as set out in recitals (45) and (50) above, and in the absence of any further
comments, the definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF
Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company Name || Dumping margin

Zhangjiagang Panhua Steel Strip Co., Ltd, Chongqing Wanda Steel Strip Co., Ltd, and Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone Jiaxinda International Trade Co., Ltd || 60.9%

Zhejiang Huadong Light Steel Building Material Co. Ltd and Hangzhou P.R.P.T. Metal Material Company Ltd || 48.9%

Union Steel China || 50.9%

Other co-operating companies || 55.0%

Non co-operating companies || 68.1%

(55)     On the basis of the facts
stated in recital (60) of the provisional Regulation, the country-wide
definitive dumping margin for the PRC was established by using the highest
dumping margin established for representative product types of exporting
producers. Taking into account the adjustment of the normal value as set out in
recital (45) above, the countervailing duties resulting from export subsidies
imposed on the same product in the parallel anti-subsidy proceeding and in the
absence of any other comments, the country-wide level of dumping is established
at 68.1% of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.

5.           INJURY

5.1.        Union
production and Union industry

(56)     In the absence of further
comments on Union production, recitals (63) to (64) of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

5.2.        Union
market

(57)     In the
absence of further comments on the Union market, recitals (65) to (69) of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

5.3.        Union
consumption

(58)     Following the publication
of the provisional Regulation some interested parties pointed out some
inconsistencies in the injury data published. The Commission re-examined the
data and revised where necessary data concerning the Union industry and Union
market. Whereas this has caused some figures to change in some years, the
trends and therefore the conclusions on these data remain generally unchanged.

(59)     After the revision
explained above, the total Union consumption developed as follows:

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Consumption (in tonnes) || 5 197 716 || 3 879 380 || 4 548 528 || 4 811 310

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 75 || 88 || 93

(60)     Total consumption on the EU
market shrunk by 7 % over the period considered. Between 2008 and 2009 there
was a decrease of about 25 % mainly as a result of the global negative effects
of the economic crisis, especially on the construction industry. After that consumption
started to recover and increased by 18 percentage points from 2009 to the IP
but it was still below the initial level of 2008.

(61)     In the absence of comments
on Union consumption, recitals (70) to (72) of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

5.4.        Imports
into the Union and market share

(62)     Imports
into the Union from the PRC
developed as follows during the period considered. The market share percentages
have changed as a result of the changes in the consumption figures:

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Volume of imports from the PRC (tonnes) || 472 988 || 150 497 || 464 582 || 702 452

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 32 || 98 || 149

Market share || 9.1% || 3.9% || 10.2% || 14.6%

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 43 || 112 || 160

Source: Eurostat

(63)     The change in consumption
data above has changed the percentage market share of imports from the PRC from
the data published in the Provisional Regulation. The trend however remains the
same. Market share of imports from the PRC increased significantly from 9,1% at
the start of the period considered to 14,6% at the end. After a decrease in
2009 mirroring the strong decline in consumption due to the economic crisis,
imports recovered at a very fast pace, with market share recovering in one year
to 2008 i.e. to pre economic crisis levels and then by the end of the IP
significantly exceeding them.

5.4.1.     Prices of imports and price
undercutting

(64)     Following disclosure one
exporting producer requested further information on the calculation of the
price undercutting where there was no exact match between the product type
exported from the PRC and the product type sold on the Union market by the
Union industry. They also requested information as to whether an adjustment had
been made for physical differences where no exact match had been found.

(65)     Where no exact match
existed between the exported product type and the product type sold by the
Union industry, the Commission compared the exported product type to the
closest resembling product type sold by the Union industry. In these cases a
comparison was made to the closely resembling product type where the only
difference was the substrate thickness.

(66)     Where there was more than
one closely resembling product type, the Commission compared the exported
product type to the cheaper product type sold on the Union market, regardless
of whether this cheaper product type had a thicker, or thinner, substrate. Therefore,
no adjustment for physical differences was deemed necessary.

(67)     In
the absence of other comments on the prices of imports and price undercutting,
recitals (78) to (81) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

6.           Economic situation of the
Union industry

6.1.        Preliminary remarks

(68)     In
the absence of comments on the preliminary remarks on the economic situation of
the Union industry the conclusions in recitals (82) to (85) remain unaffected.

6.2.        Data relating to the Union
industry as a whole (macroeconomic indicators)

(69)     Following the disclosure of
the provisional findings in recitals (86) to (92) the Commission updated the
data sources on which these findings were based. This update has not
significantly changed the indicators published in the provisional Regulation
nor has it changed the trends on which the Commission's injury analysis was
based. The updated data is published below as follows:

6.2.1.     Production, production
capacity and capacity utilisation

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Production volume (tonnes) || 4 447 780 || 3 514 965 || 3 992 209 || 4 018 310

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 79 || 90 || 90

Production capacity (tonnes) || 6 007 536 || 6 128 301 || 6 099 587 || 5 923 311

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 102 || 102 || 99

Capacity utilisation || 74% || 57% || 65% || 68%

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 77 || 88 || 92

Source: Complaint,
questionnaire replies

(70)     Whereas the data have
changed slightly, the trends and the conclusions set out in recitals (87) and
(88) of the provisional Regulation remain unaffected and are therefore
confirmed. Production decreased sharply in 2009, partially recovering in 2010
and remaining stable in the IP but still below 2008 levels. Production capacity
remained constant during the period considered while capacity utilisation
declined, following the trend of production.

6.2.2.     Sales volume, market share
and growth

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Sales volume (tonnes) || 2 951 468 || 2 280 304 || 2 643 923 || 2 592 540

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 77 || 90 || 88

Market share (%) || 56.8% || 58.8% || 58.1% || 53.9%

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 104 || 102 || 95

Source: Complaint,
questionnaire replies

(71)     In 2009 the Union industry
sales volume to unrelated customers decreased sharply by 23 %. In 2010, sales
volume increased by thirteen percentage points, but then dropped by two
percentage points in the IP. The conclusions as set out in recitals (90) and
(91) of the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.

6.2.3.     Employment and productivity

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Employment (in FTE) || 7 088 || 6 470 || 6 097 || 6 046

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 91 || 86 || 85

Productivity (tonnes/FTE) || 627 || 543 || 655 || 665

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 87 || 104 || 106

Source: Complaint,
questionnaire replies, Eurofer

(72)     Whereas the data have
slightly changed, the conclusions on employment as set out in recital (92) of
the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

6.3.        Data relating to the sampled
Union producers (microeconomic indicators)

(73)     Following the disclosure of
the provisional findings in recitals (93) to (108) the Commission updated the
data sources on which these findings were based. This update has not
significantly changed the indicators published in the provisional Regulation
nor has it changed the trends on which the Commission's injury analysis was
based. The updated data is published below as follows:

6.3.1.     Average unit prices of the
representative Union producers

(74)     After
the drop in unit price to unrelated customers by 21% in 2009 and accompanying
loss, the unit price started to recover. In 2010 and during the IP, the Union
industry experienced an increase in costs and could only moderately increase
the prices to cover them, enough just to keep the profitability on the same low
level for 2010 and the IP. However, this resulted in a further loss in market
share since the Chinese import prices were constantly undercutting the Union
industry prices.

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Unit price in EU to unrelated customers (EUR/tonne) || 1 023 || 805 || 911 || 994

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 79 || 89 || 97

Unit cost of production (EUR/tonne) || 925 || 884 || 893 || 978

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 95 || 97 || 106

Source: Verified
questionnaire replies of the sampled producers

6.3.2.     Profitability, cash flow,
investments, return on investment

(75)     This table is restated here
for ease of reference, as the data and therefore the conclusions drawn from it
have not changed.

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Profitability of sales in the EU to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover) || 6.7% || -9.3% || 2.8% || 2.6%

Index (2008=100) || 100 || -138 || 41 || 39

Cash flow (EUR) || 328 190 880 || 211 298 356 || 152 030 083 || 204 650 414

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 64 || 46 || 62

Investments (EUR) || 55 717 957 || 4 537 128 || 12 530 132 || 15 302 264

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 8 || 22 || 27

Return on investments || 13.8% || -13.9% || 5.9% || 6%

Index (2008=100) || 100 || -101 || 43 || 44

Source: Verified
questionnaire replies of the sampled producers

6.3.3.     Stocks

(76)     This table is restated here
for ease of reference, as the data and therefore the conclusions drawn from it
have not changed.

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Closing stocks (tonnes) || 116 852 || 97 533 || 124 848 || 130 593

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 83 || 107 || 112

Source: Verified
questionnaire replies of the sampled producers

6.3.4.     Employment, wages and
productivity

(77)     This table is restated here
for ease of reference, as the data and therefore the conclusions drawn from it
have not changed.

Average labour costs per employee (EUR, sampled EU producers) || 60,959 || 57,892 || 58,637 || 62,347

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 95 || 96 || 102

Source: Verified
questionnaire replies of the sampled producers

6.3.5.     Captive use and captive
sales

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Captive use and captive sales (tonnes) || 1 135 987 || 914 412 || 986 386 || 970 757

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 80 || 87 || 85

Market share || 22% || 24% || 22% || 20%

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 108 || 99 || 92

Source: Complaint
and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled producers

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Captive use and captive sales (EUR/tonne) || 962 || 802 || 901 || 965

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 83 || 94 || 100

Source: Verified
questionnaire replies of the sampled producers

(78)     Despite the corrections
made to the data published in the Provisional Regulation, the findings on
captive use and sales remain unchanged. The average value per tonne of captive
sales remained stable during the period considered and was 3 % lower than the
sales price to unrelated customers in the IP of the sampled Union producers.

6.4.        Conclusion on injury

(79)     Based on the above, the
provisional findings set out in recitals (110) to (113) of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

(80)     Following the publication
of the provisional Regulation two parties came forward and claimed that more
recent data are more relevant to the determination of injury and that the
Commission should not have taken 2008 as the starting point of the injury
analysis, but rather should have used 2009. They stated that WTO case law has
made the point that more recent data are more relevant to the determination of
injury than historical data, and that the outcome of an end-point to end-point
comparison very much depends on which years are used, as a one-year shift can
show a different result. A comparison from 2009 to the end of the IP therefore
shows a different trend to a comparison from the start of the period considered
to the end of the IP.

(81)     This claim was not accepted.
The period considered was defined in line with usual practice, and the
recommendations of the WTO, as an objective period of three to four years
ending at the end of the investigation period, which is itself a 12 month
period ending as close as possible to the date of initiation.

(82)     Even if the period
considered had started in 2009, the finding of material injury would remain
valid. The Union industry had not reached its target profit with increasing
imports during the period despite increasing production volumes, and sales
volumes, and increasing productivity. As consumption rises after 2009 this
increase was supplied by imports from China, and not by the Union industry, who
lost market share from 2009 to the end of the IP.

7.           CAUSALITY

7.1.        Effect of the dumped
imports

(83)     In the absence of comments,
the provisional findings set out in recitals (115) to (119) of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

7.2.        Effect
of other factors

7.2.1.     Imports from third countries

Country || || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

South Korea || Volume (tonnes) || 228 123 || 226 568 || 173 935 || 237 164

|| Index (2008=100) || 100 || 99 || 76 || 104

|| Market share (%) || 4.4% || 5.8% || 3.8% || 4.9%

|| Index (2008=100) || 100 || 133 || 87 || 112

|| Av. price || 901 || 727 || 846 || 903

|| Index (2008=100) || 100 || 81 || 94 || 100

India || Volume (tonnes) || 159 999 || 149 138 || 155 384 || 141 391

|| Index (2008=100) || 100 || 93 || 97 || 88

|| Market share (%) || 3.1% || 3.8% || 3.4% || 2.9%

|| Index (2008=100) || 100 || 125 || 111 || 95

|| Av. price || 932 || 667 || 773 || 824

|| Index (2008=100) || 100 || 72 || 83 || 88

Other countries || Volume (tonnes) || 249 151 || 158 461 || 124 319 || 167 007

|| Index (2008=100) || 100 || 64 || 50 || 67

|| Market share (%) || 4.8% || 4.1% || 2.7% || 3.5%

|| Index (2008=100) || 100 || 85 || 57 || 72

|| Av. price || 951 || 809 || 924 || 955

|| Index (2008=100) || 100 || 85 || 97 || 100

Total of all third countries except the PRC || Volume (tonnes) || 637 274 || 534 167 || 453 637 || 545 562

|| Index (2008=100) || 100 || 84 || 71 || 86

|| Market share (%) || 12.3% || 13.8% || 10.0% || 11.3%

|| Index (2008=100) || 100 || 112 || 81 || 92

|| Av. price || 929 || 735 || 842 || 898

|| Index (2008=100) || 100 || 79 || 91 || 97

Source: Eurostat

(84)     Given the small changes
made to the data from the Union industry, this has also slightly affected the
data concerning market shares of imports from third countries.

(85)     Some interested parties
challenged the Commission's decision to open an investigation only against China, and not against India and South Korea, although the import volumes and price trends matched
those of the PRC.

(86)     As set out in recitals
(120) to (122) of the provisional Regulation, import volumes from India fell
during the period considered, and imports from South Korea increased by only
4%. Indian prices dropped by 12% and South Korean prices remained stable, but
at all times higher than those from China. The argument is therefore rejected
as the Commission received no evidence or allegation of dumping and resulting
injury from those countries.

(87)     The findings as set out in
recitals (120) to (122) of the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.

7.2.2.     Export performance of the Union
industry

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Exports, Eurostat (tonnes) || 669 790 || 612 204 || 580 477 || 605 760

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 91 || 87 || 90

Average price (EUR/tonne) || 1 068 || 937 || 995 || 1 092

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 88 || 93 || 102

Exports by sampled Union producers || 53 542 || 46 516 || 48 102 || 46 228

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 87 || 90 || 86

Average selling price (EUR/tonne) || 1 086 || 826 || 984 || 1 132

Index (2008=100) || 100 || 76 || 91 || 104

Source: Eurostat and verified questionnaire replies

(88)     In the absence of comments
on the export performance of the Union industry, the findings of recitals (123)
to (124) are hereby confirmed.

7.2.3.     Imports from the PRC by the
Union industry

(89)     Some parties continued
making allegations that contrary to that stated in recital (125) of the
provisional Regulation, the import volumes of the Union industry from the PRC
constituted up to 40% of total imports from the PRC. No evidence was provided
for this allegation and it could not be confirmed. The allegation is therefore
rejected.

(90)     Following final disclosure
one importer claimed that the Union industry was importing large quantities of
the product concerned from the PRC and used its re-sales data to demonstrate
this.

(91)     The fact that the Union
industry has imported quantities of the product concerned from the PRC is not
in dispute. However, even using the importer's own data, the volume claimed is
less than 1% of total imports from the PRC and therefore negligible. As stated
in recital (125) of the provisional Regulation, imports from the PRC by the
Union industry were 2-3% of total imports during the investigation period.

(92)     The findings of recital
(125) of the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.

7.2.4.     Captive use and captive
sales

(93)     Following final disclosure
CISA again claimed that the Union industry was making OCS available to its
related downstream businesses at a "subsidised" price, thereby
undercutting their competitors in the downstream segment. However, no evidence
was provided to change the Commission's conclusion in recital (127) of the
provisional Regulation, i.e. that the price difference between related and
unrelated sales was small (2%) and that this was not a case of self-inflicted
injury.

(94)     CISA also challenged the
data on the cost of production of OCS and, in extension, the price of OCS to
related parties. Given the sales price of hot-dipped galvanised coils, a raw
material in the manufacture of OCS, they allege that the cost of production of
OCS in the investigation period could not exceed 900 EUR/tonne.

(95)     Whereas the Commission does
not dispute the data provided by CISA regarding the production cost of
hot-dipped galvanised coils, the cost of production of OCS was verified in all
of the sampled Union producers. The Commission is satisfied that the full cost
of production (raw materials, processing, coating, SG&A, finance costs
etc.) is as set out in recital (74) above.

(96)     CISA then claimed that the
sale of OCS to related parties is made at a loss and is therefore a cause of
injury to the Union industry. This is based on a comparison of the total cost
of production (978 EUR/tonne) versus the average price of related sale (965
EUR/tonne).

(97)     Whereas it is correct that
a simple mathematical comparison would suggest that related sales were made at
a loss, this would assume that the Union industry would incur the same level of
SG&A and other sales overheads on their captive sales as on their unrelated
ones. As stated in recital (105) of the provisional Regulation, sales to
related parties were made on a 'cost plus' basis and therefore the Union
Industry was recovering their costs on these sales.

(98)     In the absence of other comments
on this point the findings of recitals (126) to (127) of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

7.2.5.     Economic crisis

(99)     After the deadline for
comments to the final disclosure an interested party noted the announced
closure of a plant in Belgium, and that force majeure was causing difficulties
to normal production and shipment from other facilities in Belgium. The interested party alleged that this shows the lack of security of supply of OCS in the
EU and was a reason to allow importers and users to freely source their OCS
from the EU and from China.

(100)   These arguments are
rejected. Given that capacity utilisation in the EU is low, the issue is not one
of a problem of supply as the Union industry has adequate available capacity. In
any case the facilities being closed in Belgium did not manufacture OCS.
Security of supply is of course important, but the proposed duties in this case
are not designed to stop supply of OCS from China, merely to prevent that
supply being dumped onto the EU market.

(101)   In the absence of other comments
on this point the findings of recitals (128) to (129) of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

7.2.6.     Structural overcapacity

(102)   Some parties made further
allegations that the Union producers had a structural overcapacity, exceeding
the total Union consumption. The allegation had been made at an earlier stage
and was dealt with in recitals (130) to (132) of the provisional Regulation. In
the absence of further evidence on this point, the conclusion of these recitals
is therefore confirmed.

7.2.7.     Increase in cost of
production

(103)   Some parties made further
allegations that a source of injury to the Union producers was an increase in
their cost of production during the period considered. Data above shows that
cost of production on average increased by only 6%. In the absence of dumped
imports from the PRC the Union industry should be able to pass this increase on
to its customers, yet prices fell by 3%. The claim that cost of production was
a cause of injury is therefore rejected.

7.3.        Conclusion on causation

(104)   Based on the above, the
provisional findings as set out in recitals (133) to (136) of the provisional
Regulation that the dumped imports from the PRC caused material injury to the
Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation are
maintained. The provisional findings about the effect of the other known
factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry were also
confirmed: these factors are not such as to break the causal link established
between the dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union
industry.

8.           UNION INTEREST

8.1.        Union industry

(105)   No new comments or
information were received regarding the interest of the Union producers after
disclosure of the provisional findings. Therefore recitals (138) to (143) of
the provisional Regulation on the interest of these interested parties are hereby
confirmed.

8.2.        Importers, traders and
users

(106)   Comments were received from
importers and other interested parties following final disclosure, however no new
comments or information were received regarding the interest of importers,
traders or users. Therefore the provisional findings in recitals (144) to (152)
of the provisional Regulation on the interest of these parties are hereby
confirmed.

8.3.        Conclusion on Union
interest

(107)   In view of the above, the
provisional findings concerning Union interest are confirmed, i.e. there are no
compelling reasons against the imposition of definitive measures on imports of
OCS originating in the PRC.

9.           DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING
MEASURES

9.1.        Injury elimination level

(108)   Following provisional
disclosure, two interested parties claimed that the data provided did not give
sufficient information and explanation on the calculation of the undercutting
and underselling margins. As explained in the provisional disclosure, some
values were not disclosed due to confidentiality as the model concerned was
only manufactured by one or two Union producers. At the stage of final
disclosure ranges for these models were disclosed.

(109)   Interested parties also
challenged the use of 6,7% as the target profit of the Union industry to
calculate the injury margin. They claimed that such a profit is overstated and
unrealistic given the current economic environment and that 2008 was not a
representative year for profitability, as it was an exceptional year for the
steel industry.

(110)   This claim is rejected.
Firstly, profitability for OCS was in fact higher before 2008 than in 2008, which
contradicts the claim that 2008 is an exceptional year. Secondly, the target
profit is the profit that can be obtained in the absence of dumped imports.
2008 was the last year where the full effects of the dumped imports had not yet
been felt by the Union industry and therefore is a suitable basis for
establishing the target profit.

(111)   Following final disclosure
interested parties again challenged the use of 6,7% as the target profit of the
Union industry and the description of 2008 as a representative year for
profitability. This argument is rejected as no evidence as to what the profit
of the Union industry would have been in 2008 in the absence of the financial
crisis was provided. In addition, their argument that the profit made by the
Union industry in 2008 was affected by the financial crisis, making 2008 an
exceptional year, would seem to point to an argument that the profit realised
in 2008 is lower than the industry would expect in a normal year.

(112)   Interested parties also
pointed to the fact that import volumes from the PRC were at their lowest in
2009 rather than in 2008. However, given that the Union industry was not
profitable in 2009, it is impossible to use 2009 data to set a target profit
for the Union industry.

(113)   CISA have further alleged
that the profit to unrelated customers in 2008 cannot be used as the target
profit because that year shows the largest price difference between related and
unrelated sales. This argument was rejected, as this price difference is not
relevant to the calculation of the profit of sales to unrelated customers.

(114)   CISA then proposed that the
target profit for sales of OCS to unrelated parties in the Union be based on
the average overall profit for the multinational corporation ArcelorMittal for
the years 2010 and 2011. This was rejected as a reliable source for the profit
on OCS in the Union in the absence of dumped imports, because taking the profit
of the entire worldwide ArcelorMittal group is clearly not representative of
profit on sales of OCS in the Union.

(115)   Interested parties also
challenged the post-importation costs used to calculate the provisional duties
as they were based on the data from only one importer. The Commission verified
a second importer at a later stage and their data has been now used to
calculate post-importation costs. By using an average of the two companies
these costs have now dropped slightly, thereby increasing the injury margins
accordingly.

(116)   One interested party
challenged the Commission's methodology for the calculation of the underselling
margin. However, this challenge was based on the erroneous assumption that the
Commission had calculated the underselling margin by removing the average
profit of the Union industry in the IP (2.6%) from the market price to get to
the 'break-even point' (i.e. a price that would result in zero profit) and then
adding the target profit onto this 'break-even point'.

(117)   The Commission calculated
the underselling margin by adding the target profit to the cost of production of
each product type. The methodology suggested by this interested party is
flawed, because the average profit of 2.6% was not automatically achieved on
each sale of each model by all companies from which the data was used.

(118)   One interested party also challenged
the Commission's injury calculations. Given that that party did not have full
access to the data used by the Commission to calculate the injury margin, it
attempted to calculate it on its own, based on its understanding of the price
difference on the market between aluminium-zinc alloy coated and zinc coated
substrate, which it had calculated at USD 50 per MT. This 'recalculation',
based on incomplete data, resulted in a lower injury margin than that which the
Commission had calculated and disclosed.

(119)   Their arguments were
rejected because following an analysis of the full data from both the exporting
producers and the Union industry, the alleged price difference could not be
found. Consequently, it should be underlined that the data which the interested
party was using was incomplete and thus could not be relied upon to reproduce
the Commission's injury calculations.

(120)   Recitals (154) to (158) of
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

9.2.        Definitive measures

(121)   In view of the conclusions
reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in
accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping
duty should be imposed on imports of OCS originating in the PRC at the level of
the lower of the dumping and injury margins found, in accordance with the
lesser duty rule. In this case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the
level of the injury found.

(122)   Seven companies that were
not sampled cooperated with the anti-dumping investigation, but not the
parallel anti-subsidy one. For these companies, the anti-dumping duty rate is
set at zero. In the anti-subsidy investigation, these companies will be subject
to the residual duty.

(123)   In order to ensure equal
treatment between any new exporting producers and the cooperating companies not
included in the sample, provision should be made for the weighted average duty
imposed on the latter companies to be applied to any new producers which would
otherwise not be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic
Regulation, as Article 11(4) does not apply where sampling has been used.

(124)   On the basis of the above, the
rate at which such duties will be imposed are set as follows:

Company Name || Subsidy margin || Dumping margin || Injury margin || Countervailing duty || Anti-dumping duty

Zhangjiagang Panhua Steel Strip Co., Ltd, Chongqing Wanda Steel Strip Co., Ltd, and Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone Jiaxinda International Trade Co., Ltd || 29.7% || 60.9% || 55.8% || 29.7% || 26.1%

Zhejiang Huadong Light Steel Building Material Co. Ltd and Hangzhou P.R.P.T. Metal Material Company Ltd || 23.8% || 48.9% || 29.7% || 23.8% || 5.9%

Union Steel China || 26.8% || 50.9% || 13.7% || 13.7% || 0%

Other co-operating companies in the anti-dumping investigation (with the exception of the companies subject to the residual duty in the parallel anti-subsidy regulation) || 26.8% || 55.0% || 43.0% || 26.8% || 16.2%

Non co-operating companies || 44.7% || 68.1% || 58.3% || 44.7% || 13.6%

10.         DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF
THE PROVISIONAL DUTY

(125)   In view of the magnitude of
the dumping margin found and in the light of the level of the injury caused to
the Union industry, and taking into account that no provisional measures were
imposed in the parallel anti-subsidy investigation, it is considered necessary
that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by the
provisional Regulation should be definitively collected to the extent of the
amount of the provisional duty imposed. In these circumstances the provisional
duty at the rates set out in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 845/2012 should
be definitively collected. However amounts provisionally secured for products
with a substrate with a metallic coating of chromium or tin should be released,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby
imposed on imports of certain organic coated steel products, i.e. flat-rolled
products of non-alloy and alloy steel (not including stainless steel) which are
painted, varnished or coated with plastics on at least one side, excluding
so-called 'sandwich panels' of a kind used for building applications and
consisting of two outer metal sheets with a stabilising core of insulation
material sandwiched between them, excluding those products with a final coating
of zinc-dust (a zinc-rich paint, containing by weight 70 % or more of zinc),
and excluding those products with a substrate with a metallic coating of
chromium or tin, currently falling within CN codes ex 7210 70 80, ex 7212 40
80, ex 7225 99 00, ex 7226 99 70 (TARIC codes 7210 70 80 11, 7210 70 80 91,
7212 40 80 01, 7212 40 80 21, 7212 40 80 91, 7225 99 00 11, 7225 99 00 91, 7226
99 70 11 and 7226 99 70 91), and originating in the People's Republic of China.

2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping
duty shall be as follows:

Company || Duty (%) || TARIC additional code

Union Steel China || 0% || B311

Zhangjiagang Panhua Steel Strip Co., Ltd, Chongqing Wanda Steel Strip Co., Ltd, and Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone Jiaxinda International Trade Co., Ltd || 26.1% || B312

Zhejiang Huadong Light Steel Building Material Co. Ltd and Hangzhou P.R.P.T. Metal Material Company Ltd || 5.9% || B313

Angang Steel Company Limited || 16.2% || B314

Anyang Iron Steel Co. Ltd || 0% || B315

Baoshan Iron & Steel Co. Ltd || 0% || B316

Baoutou City Jialong Metal Works Co. Ltd. || 16.2% || B317

Changshu Everbright Material Technology Co.Ltd. || 16.2% || B318

Changzhou Changsong Metal Composite Material Co.Ltd. || 16.2% || B319

Cibao Modern Steel Sheet Jiangsu Co Ltd. || 0% || B320

Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel Union Co.Ltd. || 16.2% || B321

Jiangyin Ninesky Technology Co.Ltd. || 0% || B322

Jiangyin Zhongjiang Prepainted Steel Mfg Co.Ltd. || 0% || B323

Jigang Group Co., Ltd. || 16.2% || B324

Maanshan Iron&Steel Company Limited || 16.2% || B325

Qingdao Hangang Color Coated Sheet Co. Ltd. || 16.2% || B326

Shandong Guanzhou Co. Ltd. || 16.2% || B327

Shenzen Sino Master Steel Sheet Co.Ltd. || 16.2% || B328

Tangshan Iron And Steel Group Co.Ltd. || 16.2% || B329

Tianjin Xinyu Color Plate Co.Ltd. || 16.2% || B330

Wuhan Iron And Steel Company Limited || 16.2% || B331

Wuxi Zhongcai New Materials Co.Ltd. || 0% || B332

Xinyu Iron And Steel Co.Ltd. || 0% || B333

Zhejiang Tiannu Color Steel Co. Ltd. || 16.2% || B334

All other companies || 13.6% || B999

5. Unless otherwise specified, the
provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

Article 2

Amounts secured
by way of provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 845/2012
shall be definitively collected at the rate set in Article 1 of that
Regulation. However amounts provisionally secured for products with a substrate
with a metallic coating of chromium or tin should be released.

Article 3

Where any producer from the People’s
Republic of China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that it did
not export the goods described in Article 1(1) originating in the People’s
Republic of China during the period of investigation (1 October 2010 to 30
September 2011); that it is not related to an exporter or producer subject to
the measures imposed by this Regulation; and that it has either actually
exported the goods concerned or has entered into an irrevocable contractual
obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the end of the
period of investigation, the Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal
by the Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, may amend Article
1(2) in order to attribute to that producer the duty applicable to cooperating
producers not in the sample.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on
the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Union.

This
Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all
Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For
the Council

The
President

[1]        OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

[2]        OJ L 252, 19.09.2012, p. 33.

EN

TRADE

TIMETABLE

15.02.2013                              Adoption
by the Commission

15.02.2013                              Transmission
to the Council

15.03.2013                              Publication
of Council Regulation

ZEITPLAN

15.02.2013                              Annahme
durch die Kommission

15.02.2013                              Übersendung
an den Rat

15.03.2013                              Veröffentlichung
der Ratsverordnung

CALENDRIER

15.02.2013                              Adoption
par la Commission

15.02.2013                              Transmission
au Conseil

15.03.2013                              Publication
du règlement du Conseil